Player Discussion Phillip Danault - The Centermania Edition

[Sorinth]

It was mostly on the top of my head... I forgot some names like Cirelli, I'm sure he's not the only one, because we can put many players in that situation they will perform as good as him if not better. I don't know why you took the 46-56 mark... 56 is damn close to 60, a #3C.

You listed 45 players that you thought were better and 10 guys that it was too tough to tell if they were better or not. So if your list is accurate, then he falls somewhere between 46-56. Yeah 56 is close to 63 which would be the first 3rd line center, but 46 is right there in the middle of 2nd line centers. So by your own list he's either an average or below or below average 2nd line center. And yes the difference between the top 3rd line centers, and the worst 2nd line centers isn't going to be much, yet you've insisted on calling him a 3rd liner so clearly you believe there is enough of a difference or you wouldn't insist so much on him not being a 3rd liner.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

please expand. This statement is wrong in so many ways. They are polar opposites.

Strong with the puck, stone hands, good hockey sense but not great, pretty good against the board, make simple passes, skate well, really good defensively, not a great at scoring goals...

 

[Sorinth]

Some guys around here have a hard time understanding that if you're the 20th best center then you might be a 1st line center but likely on a team outside the playoffs and if you're the 50th best center then you might be a 2nd line center but likely on a team outside the playoffs. If you want to win your first line center must ideally be top 10ish and your 2nd line center ideally top 40ish. This is in a ideal world of course you can cover a weakness a center with key players at other position (like Scott Stevens, Scott Niedermayer, Brian Rafalski and Martin Brodure) but it's still a weakness. There's obviously no perfect formula but if yor centers are not some of the best at their position and given TOI then you must cover with better players at other positions (which doesn't include the likes of Kulak, Folin, ...).

Agreed, if a team has an average 1st line center, and an average 2nd line center, etc... then they will be an average team. If you want to be a contender then you'll need better then that. But there's a difference between saying we need two 1st line centers in order to be a good team and claiming a 2nd liner is actually a 3rd liner.

 

[get25]

I could probably contest 10 of the first 35 but...

Danault as a 2C puts you in PO.
Danault as a 3C makes you a contender.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

You listed 45 players that you thought were better and 10 guys that it was too tough to tell if they were better or not. So if your list is accurate, then he falls somewhere between 46-56. Yeah 56 is close to 63 which would be the first 3rd line center, but 46 is right there in the middle of 2nd line centers. So by your own list he's either an average or below or below average 2nd line center. And yes the difference between the top 3rd line centers, and the worst 2nd line centers isn't going to be much, yet you've insisted on calling him a 3rd liner so clearly you believe there is enough of a difference or you wouldn't insist so much on him not being a 3rd liner.

I also said a great #3C many times while talking about him. But if you want to argue about semantic... I named almost 60 players who are better imo, some are pretty close depending on the person some would think that Danault is better some would think otherwise. And some players that I forgot to mention will probably do the same job as him with Tatar and Gally, like Cirelli.

 

[CristianoRonaldo]

I could probably contest 10 of the first 35 but...

Danault as a 2C puts you in PO.
Danault as a 3C makes you a contender.

You need to put that into the right context, some players have similar stats than Danault but are doing it with worse wingers... Phillip is getting 50-55 points from the 1st line, these centres are not all getting the same opportunities as Danault.

 

[Sorinth]

I can name you Horvat, Schenn, Eric Staal and say that Gallagher and Tatar would look better with them, you will dismiss it and the conversation won't go farther, that's why I used elite centres for my example.



You said that: "It's a coincidence Kovalchuk produced, it's a coincidence Tatar had back to back career years, it's a coincidence that Gallagher set a career high in goals. There seem to be quite a lot of coincidences when it comes to Danault." You clearly meant it.



I claimed that, because Danault is a grinder and I don't want that in my top-6 as a centre. He's not a goal scorer, he can't make good passes on a regular basis, He has stone hands, he can't create space and time for his wingers with his dribbles... Many times we see him lose the puck during the PP as he forces passes while he does not have the ability to execute them. He's strong against the board, he can keep the puck in these situations, can make simple passes, he's pretty good defensively, has a good hockey sense and skate well, protect the puck tremendously.

He's on pace for 55 points, playing with the best wingers in EV and in the PP. The last 39 games he's getting 1:53 on average per/game, but he's still bad on the power play, only got 3 points during that time. His skill set is not suited for the Power play.

Domi, now that he's looking like the player we watched last year and Suzuki would do better than him with Tatar and Gally. They are already close in points. Domi is not as good defensively as Danault, but Suzuki is pretty close.



Gallagher was on pace for 28 goals in his rookie year with a young Eller, many years after and during his prime, he only scored 33 goals in his best year and you are here bragging that he did it with Danault. I'm sure that with a centre who can ditch the puck, he will score more goals. He's already pretty good at scoring garbage goals by his own.

Tatar is scoring at the same rate as he used to with the wings, the thing is he's getting more assists than he used to and Danault with his 13 goals is not doing much to help him in that area.

I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this but there's a big difference between a player being the reason his linemates are producing and being a drag on his linemates. I've never claimed Danault is the reason they had career years, I've said those career years are proof that Danault isn't a drag on his linemates.

Not really, Gally's takeaway stats improved and Tatar takeaways were high last year, but not this year, it's back to normal, so it's probably not because of Danault. I used raw stats, takeaways per 60 minutes, I don't know where to find, if you have a link, I would like to see it.

nhl.com has the stats per 60 minutes under the miscellaneous report, but like I said I consider the stat useless anyways.

 

[Patccmoi]

How you see him depends a lot on how you value ES vs total points.

I think the reason he will keep being used a lot as a 1st line center for now is because he's just a solid ES center, and that's something coaches value a lot. Danault is currently 18th C in the NHL for ES scoring, which WOULD put him as a middle-of-the-pack 1st line center at ES offensively. And he has +19 on a fairly weak team, with a FO% at 54.9% which is also above average. Only 5 centers with more points (total, ES or not) than him have a better +/- than he does, and a lot of them play for better teams, so he's actually a top tier 1st line center defensively (and we all know he's not sheltered in any way).

Take ES only, and he is a first line center, slightly sub-par offensively, but above average defensively. And his wingers are producing very well, so he's not hurting their production at ES at all.

On the PP, he's bad. We need a better player there. But Danault being used as a 1st line center isn't what's hurting this team. Obviously we'll be better off if Suzuki or KK develops into a more complete 1st line C that's also useful on the PP (although they could still be very useful on the PP even if Danault is used more at ES). But saying he's a "good 3rd line center" is laughable at this point. He's shown he's much more than that. He's just not a PP player, which also means he should cost 2-3M less than if he was (because if he was good on the PP we'd be looking at a PPG 1st line C and that costs 8M+ now) and we can put that towards better PP players somewhere in the line-up.

 

[get25]

You need to put that into the right context, some players have similar stats than Danault but are doing it with worse wingers... Phillip is getting 50-55 points from the 1st line, these centres are not all getting the same opportunities as Danault.

40 points on a third line is fine with me.

 

[Sorinth]

You need to put that into the right context, some players have similar stats than Danault but are doing it with worse wingers... Phillip is getting 50-55 points from the 1st line, these centres are not all getting the same opportunities as Danault.

And many of those centers are also playing with wingers a lot better then Tatar and Gallagher. For example Bergeron who without question is better then Danault also happens to play with the 2nd and 6th most productive NHL players, both of whom are on pace for over 100 points. Yet nobody would ever argue Bergeron is being carried by his wingers. It works both ways.

 

[ECWHSWI]

And many of those centers are also playing with wingers a lot better then Tatar and Gallagher. For example Bergeron who without question is better then Danault also happens to play with the 2nd and 6th most productive NHL players, both of whom are on pace for over 100 points. Yet nobody would ever argue Bergeron is being carried by his wingers. It works both ways.

Bergeron was having 70+ pts seasons before CJ turned him into a 60 pts two way C... so yeah, nobody would argue he's being carried by other players...

 

[Doc McKenna]

And many of those centers are also playing with wingers a lot better then Tatar and Gallagher. For example Bergeron who without question is better then Danault also happens to play with the 2nd and 6th most productive NHL players, both of whom are on pace for over 100 points. Yet nobody would ever argue Bergeron is being carried by his wingers. It works both ways.

Perhaps they are that productive because bergeron is that good of a center. I would say his assist tally IS higher because his linemates can put it in the net, but its maybe 5-10 assists a year. Its his goalscoring ability that makes him a threat. Also frees up ice for his linemates. Guy can't stay healthy but has hit 30 goals 5 times and sits at 29 this year. in 2005 as a 20 year old he had 31 goals 42 assist for 73 points. He has had only 4 seasons he didn't hit 20 goals 1 was his rokie year, one he was injured almost the entire year, 1 was the year following his major injury where he only played 64 games and finally the shortened season.

I am sorry but everytime you guys bring up Bergeron playing with better players while this guy put up 31 goals as a 20 year old when his present linemates weren't even in juniors. His number are PPG the last 3 seasons, but its not like the guy wasn't scoring before these guys were on his wings. Bergeron has hands, danault simply doesn't. I would argue DD has better vision and passing than danault. but DD had ZERO backchecking.

But people keep saying in this very thread that he is a selke like candidate and our version of bergeron. Its simply isn't the case. Bergeron is a PPG player, so are his linemates. But he does a lot of scoring too. Bergeron is no A Oates, and Danault certainly isn't either.

 

[Doc McKenna]

So since danault and domi are going to finish the season with maybe 3 points difference and neither hitting 60, let alone 70. Where do the habs sits for centers going forward. Suzuki is happily turning out to be gold. But I will wait to see if he has a sophomore slump before making any decisions. Who is our 1st line center next year? What do we do with KK and Poehling. Do habs target a Dman for draft or simply BPA?

 

[MTL-rules]

I can name you at least 35 players better than Danault at centre. Can you do the same for Gallagher in the RW. Gallagher is closer to a #1RW than Danault is to a #1C.

Yes I can since your evaluation is based on subjective impression... I can also be as subjective.

Let's keep being subjective and talk about the importance of being a 200 foot player to be considered a 1st line player. In taht Danault is closer than Gallagher.

If frustrating to see the negative double standards Danault gets on this board.

 

[Habs Icing]

Generally by saying "at least X", it means close to that number. So yeah maybe instead of 35 you would actually end up with 40, but it's unlikely to be 50 or 60+ because otherwise you would have used a bigger number when saying "at least".

"At least" means a minimum. It connotes a floor. It says nothing about a ceiling. Maybe you're a francophone and that nuance escapes you but no anglophone would understand the phrase "at least" as setting both a ceiling and a floor.

 

[Habs Icing]

Personally, I don't really like Danault.

Most of the time it looks like he half-asses his plays. Cannot for his life make a decent pass, and he's the centerman.

He's a fringe 2nd line centre, and a decent third line centre. But 1st line centre? Please.

The next GM needs to fix the centre position, even if it means overpaying.

I really like Domi and I think Suzuki will be something special but Danault is an integral part of our best line. On the odd occasion, Julien has tried Suzuki and Domi with Gallagher and Tatar and it's not the same line. I agree Danault is not a #1 center on a contender but we don't have a #1 center on this team. Maybe Suzuki in a couple of years.

 

[Habs Icing]

I could probably contest 10 of the first 35 but...

Danault as a 2C puts you in PO.
Danault as a 3C makes you a contender.

Agreed!

 

[Catanddogguitarrr]

Strong with the puck, stone hands, good hockey sense but not great, pretty good against the board, make simple passes, skate well, really good defensively, not a great at scoring goals...

Not so much stone hands or he wouldn't be in nhl level,
I would add he makes "pin-ball plays" and he's lucky with "pin ball pushing puck".

 

[Habs Halifax]

You need to put that into the right context, some players have similar stats than Danault but are doing it with worse wingers... Phillip is getting 50-55 points from the 1st line, these centres are not all getting the same opportunities as Danault.

Like who? Are you looking at PP vs PK time as well? If you want to use context, we need to have all the stats on the table. Danault has 4 PP points this year bud.

* Averages 18 min a game this year with 1:30 of PP time.

* Danault has a 54% Corsi with 55% of his starts in the defensive zone (+19 rating... Leads the team)
* Gallagher has a 63% Corsi with 42% of his starts in the defensive zone (+9 rating.. ranks 4th)
* Tatar has a 64% Corsi with 40% of his starts in the defensive zone (+5 rating.. ranks 6th)

All players need good players to play with.

 

[26Mats]

Strong with the puck, stone hands, good hockey sense but not great, pretty good against the board, make simple passes, skate well, really good defensively, not a great at scoring goals...

Not so much stone hands or he wouldn't be in nhl level,
I would add he makes "pin-ball plays" and he's lucky with "pin ball pushing puck".

And I would add can skate the puck up the ice well which can generate offense. Also often first to the puck, good at surprising the opposition to create turnovers and chances for his linmates off a counter rush.

 

[Be a Hab]

So since danault and domi are going to finish the season with maybe 3 points difference and neither hitting 60, let alone 70. Where do the habs sits for centers going forward. Suzuki is happily turning out to be gold. But I will wait to see if he has a sophomore slump before making any decisions. Who is our 1st line center next year? What do we do with KK and Poehling. Do habs target a Dman for draft or simply BPA?

I definitely think we should draft the BPA. We have holes in a lot of area's but above all, we need talent in every area so lets just pick the best prospect and hope for the best.

As for our C's, It's a tough call, my guess is that MB will try and trade one of Domi or Poehling for a LHD this summer.

 

[JoelWarlord]

Some guys around here have a hard time understanding that if you're the 20th best center then you might be a 1st line center but likely on a team outside the playoffs and if you're the 50th best center then you might be a 2nd line center but likely on a team outside the playoffs.

Exactly. The simple league-wide ranking and chunking by 31 teams for 1C and 2C doesn't really work if your goal is to contend since you're competing against teams with two or three guys inside the top 30-40 usually, and since center is the most important position, contending teams almost necessarily have above-average players in their 1C and 2C slots.

It's just frustrating that we keep having the same circular arguments about whether Danault is a 1C or not because the point is if you want to contend you need to have a center (and ideally two) who's so good it is absurd to even ask the question (granted people questioned if ROR could but that was always stupid). Every cup team in the cap era had an elite 1C, and the teams that didn't had franchise wingers (Kane, Hossa, Selanne, Tarasenko), franchise dmen (Pietrangelo, Parayko, Keith), or first ballot HOF all-time great dmen (Pronger, Niedermayer) which we don't have either.

If we ignore the Crosby/Malkin, Datsyuk/Zetterberg type of duos and look at the Canes who I'd call the weakest cup team of the cap era, even they had Staal/Brind'Amour. Danault is nowhere close to 2006 100 point Eric Staal, and are we really sure that he's better than 70pt Rod Brind'Amour from that year? The only cup teams since the lockout that would have Danault in their top 6 are probably St. Louis (he's better than Schenn/Bozak and they'd use Schenn on the wing if they had Danault), and he's likely the 2C on the Chicago cup teams over Handzus/Vermette/Bolland/Richards. That's basically it, he would be the 3C or lower on all but 4 of 14 cup teams since the lockout.

 

[Habs Halifax]

Yes I can since your evaluation is based on subjective impression... I can also be as subjective.

Let's keep being subjective and talk about the importance of being a 200 foot player to be considered a 1st line player. In taht Danault is closer than Gallagher.

If frustrating to see the negative double standards Danault gets on this board.

Habs fans never going to learn... Because we don't have a true #1C, someone has to be blamed for that and taking that out on Danault is dumb

 

[Habs Halifax]

Exactly. The simple league-wide ranking and chunking by 31 teams for 1C and 2C doesn't really work if your goal is to contend since you're competing against teams with two or three guys inside the top 30-40 usually, and since center is the most important position, contending teams almost necessarily have above-average players in their 1C and 2C slots.

It's just frustrating that we keep having the same circular arguments about whether Danault is a 1C or not because the point is if you want to contend you need to have a center (and ideally two) who's so good it is absurd to even ask the question (granted people questioned if ROR could but that was always stupid). Every cup team in the cap era had an elite 1C, and the teams that didn't had franchise wingers (Kane, Hossa, Selanne, Tarasenko), franchise dmen (Pietrangelo, Parayko, Keith), or first ballot HOF all-time great dmen (Pronger, Niedermayer) which we don't have either.

If we ignore the Crosby/Malkin, Datsyuk/Zetterberg type of duos and look at the Canes who I'd call the weakest cup team of the cap era, even they had Staal/Brind'Amour. Danault is nowhere close to 2006 100 point Eric Staal, and are we really sure that he's better than 70pt Rod Brind'Amour from that year? The only cup teams since the lockout that would have Danault in their top 6 are probably St. Louis (he's better than Schenn/Bozak and they'd use Schenn on the wing if they had Danault), and he's likely the 2C on the Chicago cup teams over Handzus/Vermette/Bolland/Richards. That's basically it, he would be the 3C or lower on all but 4 of 14 cup teams since the lockout.

All true but this is not Danault's fault. I see a lot of tire deflating on Danault cause we don't have a #1C. I posted a roster you are talking about in another thread...

Domi / Kopitar / Tatar
Kovalchuk / Suzuki / Armia
Drouin / Danault / Gallagher

Pretty sure Danult in that "3rd line" listed spot still results in good production. Rolling 3 lines like that would be the best we had in decades!

Someone going to say this I am sure... "Gallagher is not a 3rd line forward". Go ahead and try it... if you do, you don't understand that we would have two 2nd lines and I can list them in reverse

 

[Sorinth]

"At least" means a minimum. It connotes a floor. It says nothing about a ceiling. Maybe you're a francophone and that nuance escapes you but no anglophone would understand the phrase "at least" as setting both a ceiling and a floor.

Given the context anyone would pick the largest number possible number. So either the floor is going to be close to the ceiling, there is little difference between the ceiling and the floor so it's hard to be accurate without spending time, or they have no idea what they aren't familiar with most players.